Democrats Underfunding Youth Infrastructure

[Prank Monkey]

In their July/August issue,Utne explores the differences between how Conservatives and Progressives build their bench. It's an OK primer on how the Republicans fund/foster leadership programs for their young prospects, and how Progressives are playing catch-up (the real article to read here is My Right Wing Degree), but I'm not wild about some of the examples they used to depict young progressives. Particularly their focus on GreenCorps. Whether that says more about the depth of reporting or the state of young progressive leadership programs and those who attend them is debatable. And it probably should be debated.

But in writing this, I wanted to highlight one particularly troubling fact (emphasis mine):

"We do have more people to draw from as raw material on college campuses," says David Halperin. But the Leadership Institute has a $9.4 million budget, and its Campus Leadership Program is expanding rapidly. Between September 2004 and May 2006 the number of conservative student groups it helped start grew from 216 to 731. This fall Blackwell will dispatch 60 field staff members across the country and expects to push that total to 1,000 groups by the end of the year. By contrast, Green Corps and Campus Progress each have fewer than 20 staffers and budgets of about $1.5 million.

To put it bluntly, this is bullshit. In 2004, over $200 million was poured into building progressive infrastructure for the election. Many of those groups, like America Coming Together, were mothballed after the election. Some are reemerging now that the election cycle is heating up, others disapeared for good. The amount of that money directed to "young voter programs" during that same period was probably somewhere around the vicinity of $6-8 million.

Despite the fact that many of these groups (Music for America, PunkVoter, Indyvoter, Young Voter Alliance, MoveOn Student Action) were started from scratch in late 2003 and early 2004, and most of the staff were political newbies, we were still able to increase turnout to record levels and young people were the only voting block in the country to swing for Kerry. That $6-8 million was clearly the best investment progressive funders made in the 2004 election cycle. So why are our "youth" groups struggling to find funding in these off years, and why aren't progressive funders working to correct the imbalance between the Right and the Left in building our respective benches?

Young voters are the keys to a future Democratic majority. Let's look at the facts:

• We are the largest voting block in the country aside from the Boomers, with over 60-70 million members


• We were the only group to break for Kerry in '04. (pdf)


• We've shown that we're ready to show up in off year elections with young voters helping achieve progressive victories in 2005 and 2006.


• We are the most diverse group in the country and are most of us are unreceptive to conservative "wedge issues."

Yet, as I've heard from friends who are heavily involved in youth organizing, many of the groups designed to reach this vital segment of the electorate are struggling to obtain funds. And as the Utne article makes clear, the Right has a clear money advantage in reaching millenials. This is bad for two reasons: 1) The right could potentially erase some of the gains Progressives made among young voters. If you read the NPI study linked above, many older millenials don't fall for "wedge" issues," but on matters of security and some social issues, the younger 13-18 year old segment is still a toss-up in terms of voter-ID. 2) Conservatives are investing heavily in the development of the next generation of their leadership, while our current generation of leaders is sucking up money and resources and inhibiting the development of our future leaders.

While some people are starting to get it, it seems that most of the money men who help build movements still don't realize that the biggest bang for their buck, and the smartest move for the progressive movement overall, is investing in programs to capture, organize, and train young voters and young progressive leaders.

Take a look at the quote from Utne again - in 2004, approximately $6-8 million was spent on ALL progressive young voter organizing, compared to $9.4 million that the Leadership Institute - a single organization - receives annually. That's a crisis in the making. Let's keep it from happening.

[Warpy]

1. I've complained about this stuff for years

While Scaife has thrown money at every conservative group he could find, including bogus "student" campus conservative groups (always headed by a Mehlman type, 30 somthing and full of shit), the Democrats have done NOTHING to create and foster a strong progressive core of voters in this country. It's one of the main proofs of how the conservative DLC at the core of party leadership has consistently dropped the ball, has failed to plan for the future, has failed to pay any attention at all to the party base while they whore for coroporate money.

This alone should be enough to idict the DLC and remove them from leadership forever. There is so much more, too.

[Prank Monkey]

2. 2020 Dems close shop

I should have also added that apropos of this topic, the 2020 Democrats closed shop last week due to lack of funding. More on this at Future Majority

[madfloridian]

3. However....I don't think that NPI should try to undermine the DNC

and your theme seems to be based almost exactly on what Deborah Rappaport posted at Huff Post. NPI is Simon Rosenberg's alliance with many bloggers and the Democracy Alliance media. The members of that alliance are keeping it hush hush. We just have to figure out who is saying what about whom and who might be undermined.

If NPI wants to mount a youth movement, fine and dandy. I am sure it is needed. In fact they are doing that already. But Mrs. Rappaport does not have to go on Huff Post and try to undermine Dean's efforts at the DNC to do it.

The DNC has an overall goal to meet. Let NPI under Rosenberg, Trippi, Kos, and others...do their thing. They don't have to undermine the group that is trying to build up the state parties.

My thought is why don't the Rappaports work WITH the DNC to build the youth movement instead of withholding funds and giving millions to private groups? That is suspect to me.

[Prank Monkey]

5. Not Suspect at all

I think you answered your own question. I'm not arguing that the DNC needs to pony up and fund these groups. I think that Dean should focus on building the state parties, and I'm very happy with his 50 state strategy.

Rather, I'm calling on the funders to give money to these "private groups." They carried a lot of water for democrats in 2004, and it handicaps us to not fund them adequately year round whatever the stage of the election cycle we are in. Spreading the funding around doesn't necessarily weaken the DNC. It strengthens it. It frees the DNC up to do what it does best - build state parties - and lets others pick up the slack in areas where the DNC is less qualified - like young voter work.

In fact, if you are thinking that this is a zero sum game and Democrats need to spend their resources wisely, it makes more sense to fund these outside groups to handle young voter movement building than it does the DNC. These groups already have workable models, a track record, and large member bases. Why would you want the DNC to try to replicate that from scratch?


Full disclosure - I've worked with the Rapapports. They are one of the few people that actually understand this. You can read about me at my blog - Future Majority.

[madfloridian]

6. Why not fund it through the party?

Why would Deborah go on Huff Post, try to undermine Dean's outreach to the evangelical community, and make it sound like he was not doing his job?

She angered a lot of people with that post.

I agree in pooling efforts, but I want to know the name and purpose of every group that is working with the youth of the party. Why? Because it will eventually affect me and every one else in the party.

I admire the wealthy who contribute to both parties, but I don't think they do us a favor by posting critical statements at such a crucial time for Democrats.

[Prank Monkey]

9. No objections there

Well, I can't speak to other people's reactions to Deborah's post. I had no part in her writing that, and no personal contact with the Rapaports in over a year.

As for pooling knowing the names and purpose of each group - I have no disagreemetn with you there. I think that there are two things missing now - 1. Full funding of these groups. 2. Full coordination amongst these groups.

Granted, there are FEC and 501c issues there, but creating a list of a lot of these groups adn their purpose, and checking in on their websites or mailing lists every month isn't really that hard a thing to do.

[madfloridian]

8. From your links:

"The 2004 presidential race, especially Howard Dean's Internet-based primary campaign, created an opening for the left. It showed that the grass roots are restless and ready to take another chance on the Democratic Party. Yet since that election the Democratic National Committee, even with Dean as chair, has done little-beyond hitting them up for cash-to mine those minions for new leadership." (Oh really?)

"That task has fallen instead to the private groups that are training young leaders. While most political observers are focused on whether the Democrats will retake Congress in November, David Halperin is already looking ahead. He believes the real fight for America's future is in the classrooms of training programs on the left and right, and in the streets where those young organizers are putting their training into practice. "Our success will be measured in years," he says, "not in the next few election cycles."
http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utne&story.id=12171

Again, we need to know which private groups.

[Prank Monkey]

10. IT's not that big a secret

It's not really a secret. These groups, after all, need to publicize themselves if they want to have and impact and reach people. She's not hiding anything, just being concise for a format (editorial) that traditionally is limited to 500-800 word posts.

http://www.futuremajority.com

You will see a decent list of these groups in the right sidebar.

[madfloridian]

4. In fact the group you linked to...Skyline...is the Rappaport project.

And it is a worthy one. However, I believe the DNC would not turn down money to work with youth. Was it offered? Or is it just easier to say they are not doing enough and give the millions to other groups?

Private groups building power without disclosure is what got the right wing of the GOP in control unfortunately. I believe in disclosure by everyone, by ALL bloggers. I think bloggers who work for candidates should disclose, and that bloggers who get money from Democracy Alliance should disclose. After all, NDN is still closely connected to the DLC, isn't it their PAC?

I just think being open is best.

[ramapodem]

7. During my tenure in CDA politics.....

Money was a big headache. National never seemed to have money to give. When they did it was always to little to late.